|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is evolution so controversial? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3409 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Well not actually Evolution does not explain the origin of life (see the NCSE definition, first paragraph). it is not a "theory of origins" about how life began Evolution | National Center for Science Education
quote: Well not actually Evolutions champion is death. Organisms can not advance without a price.
quote: Well not actually Survival of the fittest, reproductive dominance, selfish DNA.
quote: Well not actually Evidence in our DNA denies common descent in general and exhibits a young genome not hundreds of thousands of years old.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3409 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Case in point
quote: How do you know I am not an expert?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3409 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Speaking of the human genome. The "effective population (Ne)" is approximately 10,000 in the current population of ~ 7 billion. This could not be if there was not a recent origin or a recent bottleneck in human ancestry. Large populations of organisms drift by polymorphisms over large timespans, increasing the "effective population" unless they have experienced the above mentioned. Since the acceptance of indels as percentage divergence between humans and chimps, evolution can not maintain a 5.6 million year split between humans and chimps. Paleoanthropology can not accommodate the new similarity percentage of 95%.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3409 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: I will endeavor to discuss only facts with you, unless your only arguments are ad hominem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3409 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
Additionally they estimated the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees to be ~100,000. This was somewhat surprising since the present day effective population size of humans is estimated to be only ~10,000. Human evolutionary genetics - Wikipedia
I used the wiki here, estimates do vary somewhat. I will have to go deeper for further conformation... Let us just accept a reasonable number to further our discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3409 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: So when and how did your bottleneck happen?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3409 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Simple Instead of being 1.33% divergent from chimps, we are now found to be 5% divergent from chimps. There are simply not enough beneficial mutations to explain a divergence from the chimp. As a side note, most mutations are either neutral or deleterious. Both are added to that genetic loading number in humans under soft selection and eventually have to be purged from a population to maintain a acceptable fitness in that population. Explain how you can account for the high U that would be imparted if mutation rates were met for a human chimp divergence of 5.6 million years? I can quantify that number but you would not like the result.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3409 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: All these bottleneck scenarios involve some kind of low population over extended time frames. That is not really tenable when you take into account the needed mutation rates for divergence between the human and chimp genome. A heavy mutation load in a small population tends to cause that population to be susceptible to sudden collapse (or a sustained downward spiral in population).
quote: The following is the calculation for a "U" given a needed mutation rate for a divergence of 5% (95% similarity) and a 5.6 million year divergence from human to chimp. 5.6 million years is 244 thousand generations (given 23 years per generation). t= number of generations since divergence (244 thousand)k= percentage of sequence divergence Estimated at 5% Ne= effective size of population ~10^3 (u)= mutation rate needed. u= k/(2t+4Ne) or 9.5x10^-8 or ~ 600 mutations per generation (mutation rate times the diploid genome in humans). Now calculating deleterious mutation rate (U) from the following suggesting that 1.7% of the genome is subject to constraint (normal estimate, citation on demand). This gives: (600x.017)= U = 10.7 (completely untenable) A acceptable amount by evolutionists would be around U=1.3. Calculating the statistical birth rate to avoid passing on deleterious mutations to the next generation by the poisson distribution. B = 2e^U (U=10.7)=88 thousand offspring needed per mating pair per generation. This is clearly impossible. I am sure most of you professionals can follow that calculation... If I need to, I will go over it step by step for you (maybe tomorrow). You can make up all the stories you like about how and when bottlenecks happen in a population but you must temper that story to real world conditions. Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3409 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Please read what I said carefully.. I said diverged.
quote: All things made equal, most scientists will assume half in their calculations Citation on demand.
quote: True, but also true is that we are more closely related to the common ancestor than to the chimp. So did the common ancestor look more like us or like the chimp? I would say neither.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3409 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
My friend Dr. Adequate You know what I have posted here is not my calculations. I only substituted in the 95% similarity in the paper found here:
Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans | Genetics | Oxford Academic If you reject the proceeding calculation you must take it up with Michael W. Nachman⇓ and Susan L. Crowell. All the justifications apply to what I have done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3409 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
Elementary my dear Genomicus Obtain the new mutation rate, determine the total mutations per diploid and just plug it in to obtain a new U.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3409 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Before I answer your question, you must answer mine. If all science we observe (science has always rested in the details) can only point to one conclusion would you accept that conclusion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3409 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: Do you get the part where they are using 1.33% divergence between human and chimp genomes and I am using 5% (new finding) Moving on Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3409 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
Oh metaphysical crap. Even better. This thread has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zaius137 Member (Idle past 3409 days) Posts: 407 Joined: |
quote: I do not dispute your statement above. All the deleterious mutations do not account one for one in mortality. There is a lot of different opinions about the number of deleterious mutations that are subject to natural selection or diseases. You miss my point in your arguments. With the implication that indels do influence protein coding regions in DNA a legitimate assertion has been made that they must be counted as percentage divergence.
quote: Furthermore, indels occur frequently in coding sequences. Our results thereby support the hypothesis that indels may have a key role in primate evolution.Comparative Genomic Analysis of Human and Chimpanzee Indicates a Key Role for Indels in Primate Evolution | SpringerLink quote: There are literally a dozen or so new papers either directly or indirectly pointing out the fact that new research shows a higher divergence between humans and chimps. If you can not accept these authorities that is another matter. Now to the crux of my argument. Using accepted statistics (the same used in my cited paper), I showed that the new mutation rate needed to account for a divergence time between humans and chimps is UNTENABLE. The deleterious mutations resulting from a 95% divergence will be certainly fatal. With 1.3% divergent U=~3. With 5% divergent U=~10. A U of (10) >> A U of (3) Implies certain fatality no matter how you cut the pie. I put this in perspective by calculating needed birth rates... You can dispute minutia all you want. The fact is that a divergence of 95% and a divergence time of 6 million or even 14 million years can not work! You are obviously knowledgeable of the subject You posts are excellent. Do the math yourself If I am wrong and you point out where, I have no trouble eating crow serve the unwashed bird up feathers and all. Just be intellectually honest.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024